Greg Laden, liar.

UPDATE: Joe Romm, perhaps fearing he’d be drawn into a defamation lawsuit with Laden for not checking to see if Laden’s claims were true has made a rare update to ClimateProgress in my favor. See below.

Note how Laden frames the screen cap, and of course does not provide a link to the original story (lest his readers are able to get the full story instead of his spin on it). He then goes on to say:

Heh, he was so raging mad when he wrote that he couldn’t even spell denialist correctly, or even spell the name of this blog correctly even though he has a screen cap to guide him. He claims I “wasn’t equipped to recognize this science as bogus”. Well, I found it odd, but also interesting, and as Willis Eschenbach pointed out in comments:

I don’t agree with those saying it should not be posted. In my experience, there’s no faster way to separate wheat from chaff than to expose it to the unblinking eye of the populi on the web …

Unlike Mr. Laden (who gives the impression he’s an expert in everything), I’ve never claimed to be an expert in meteors or diatoms. So, I put it up for discussion. I also put several caveats in the story clearly showing my doubts, including the possibility that the Earthly diatoms hitched a ride on a tektite, but Mr. Laden won’t show you that, I will.

You see, it’s all part of a purposely orchestrated lie by Mr. Laden. If Mr. Laden hadn’t been so caught up in his hate, and made just an ever so slightly larger screen cap, this is what his readers would have seen from the story:

In case the print is too small, here’s the full paragraph (which Laden cut off):

This looks to be a huge story, the first evidence of extraterrestrial life, if it holds up. I would remind readers that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence“. This needs to be confirmed by others in the science community before it can be taken seriously.

I don’t know how I could have made the caveat any clearer. Anyone not blinded by hate can see that in my very first paragraph, in red even.

Of course, Laden cuts off the most important part of the caveat and without an immediate link to the story, the weak minded or members of the his choir of haters have no single click way to check his claim, but that is what he is counting on.

As for the “never” part of Laden’s claim about his comments appearing, here they are:

His first two comments were snipped by moderators for not following the WUWT site policy, his others, (which didn’t contain hateful words) were published, including the comment on the meteor story he falsely claims never appeared.

Mr. Laden, you are a liar who published this story knowing full well what you were doing.

What you were doing was being a hater, not a scientist. Being a hater is part of Mr. Laden’s site policy, which incredibly, he spells out for all to see. Scroll down to “commenting policy”.

What Laden did here is a perfect example of why the general public is losing faith in climate science; this mix of condescension, censorship, incomplete presentation, misdirection, and overt hatred on display is exactly why reasonable people recoil and lose faith in the climate claims being made, which in some cases, can be just as dubious as diatoms on meteors.

The difference between myself and Mr. Laden is that WUWT isn’t afraid to have topics for discussion that might be proven wrong, and in the process, people learn something. I’m also not afraid to admit I’m not an expert on meteors or diatoms, and to ask my readers (who might be) what they think while at the same time making it clear that I had serious doubts about the claim.

If people like Laden ruled science, we’d never see any advances from serendipity or other odd moments where the scientist observes something unexpected and says to him/herself “hmmm, that’s odd”, because they’d be shouted down as “bogus” without even a discussion.

UPDATE: Joe Romm, responding to my email to him, has offered the closest thing he can to a walkback on the lie (of which he was also a victim) by Laden. He’s posted this on the Climate progress story by Laden smearing me. He sounds like Fox News “we report, you decide”.

JR UPDATE: Watts feels he was quoted out of context, that he put in appropriate caveats. His response is here. Greg Laden replies here. You decide.

In other news, in his latest childish rant, Mr. Laden wants his readers to think that I’m a child hater (even though I have two grade school aged children of my own).

It is against my blog policy to provide links to science denialist sites. It would be unethical for me to do that on a regular basis because it would enhance the google juice of pseudoscience. I’ve got children. I want them to grow up in a better world, not the world that Anthony Watts wants them to grow up in. So, no.

Another lie by Greg Laden. I never get how extremists like Laden think they somehow can be the only people that care about children’s future. I want a better future for my children to, just not the same one Mr. Laden envisions. As these commenters put it:

There are believers and non-believers, there are the religious and non-religious, and in each set there are the fanatics who have a screw loose. Any doubt where Mr. Laden falls in the continuum? The sad part of this are the followers of the fanatics for they can only be described as dumber than a box of rocks.

I posted this at Think Progress…
Eric H. says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 17, 2013 at 1:55 am
Interesting what you can learn when you show the complete statement:
“This looks to be a huge story, the first evidence of extraterrestrial life, if it holds up. I would remind readers that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence“. This needs to be confirmed by others in the science community before it can be taken seriously.”
How far will Mr. Laden go to smear Anthony? I believe you owe Watts and his readership an apology.
Eric

Well done, Anthony, for calling him out. He clearly feels rubbed the wrong way by you and perhaps by your successes at getting science across when the Greens seem to have such a hard time with that. Please do keep up the good work. ;)

Is there a reason you chopped off the full first paragraph where he goes rather over-the-top in saying this is a big fat maybe? Let me copy the full thing:

This looks to be a huge story, the first evidence of extraterrestrial life, if it holds up. I would remind readers that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence“. This needs to be confirmed by others in the science community before it can be taken seriously.

It was both necessary and prudent to respond to Laden’s deliberate malice. Your site and the folks who contribute to it who also share your zeal for the truth about climate change, provide a realm of sanity to the constant barrage of global warming junk that steadily streams from mainstream media and our government. WUWT is the vaccine that has kept me from catching the AGW contagion. Thank you for being there for us.

So Mr Laden is a “liar” and a “hater”. I wasn’t able to devine his hatred for you, through his writing. He doesn’t think much of you, granted. But hate? Stick to what you know to be the facts, and stay clear of guessing what people are thinking. Not scientific. You might want to check your own WUWT site policy on these things.

January 16, 2013
Andy, I don’t say he was taken in. I said he did not recognize an utterly obviously bogus claim, and that he demonstrated a less than stellar understanding of some science he should have had a clue about.

This is not a claim tobeskeptical about. This is a claim to reject right away.

Andy

January 16, 2013
Oh so you agree he was skeptical which must entail him recognising or at least appreciating the rather grand claims made, a ‘bogus claim’ in your words…… the story now becomes, Watts correctly was skeptical about some stuff published. This makes him ‘anti science’.

You look foolish when stooping to such levels.

Dave Lowery

England
January 17, 2013
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Andy I agree. Reading the whole of Watts’ original post shows he was clearly sceptical. Posting a slightly larger screen cap would have demonstrated this.

Wikipedia says that National Geographic now has editorial control over Science Blogs. Perhaps a strong complaint to NatGeo? (Although I’ve lost by my boyhood love for them after they became shrill warmists.)

Other strange bedfellows: quoting from Wikipedia on Science Blogs… “A writer at the New York Times Magazine reviewed the incident and commented, ‘ScienceBlogs has become Fox News for the religion-baiting, peak-oil crowd.'”

Laden’s post clearly includes the words “…if it holds up” which are underlined. Without reading another word it is clear that the writer (Anthony) had doubts. To then claim that there was an inability on the part of Anthony to recognize bogus science as bogus is disingenuous to say the least.

Greg (“did I mention I went to Harvard?”) Laden at least nails his flag to his masthead:
“Culture as Science-Science as Culture”. The culture is quite green and must have been forgotten, incubating at the back of a dark fridge (was it a Harvard fridge?) for some time.

I prefer my science out in the open where the winds of controversy can clarify it. (Stanford grad: “Die Luft der Freiheit Weht”….or at least it used to.

In my opinion there are some pretty obnoxious people around claiming to be scientists. If they are so sure of their science why is there so much doubt in the public’s mind? Why can they not provide the evidence of it?

People become sceptical to contradiction – for example, when told that global warming causes cooling, etc .. the non-denailists (SIC) need consistency in their arguments.

Also, if there were evidence for the claims they make, there would be no doubt, everyone would agree and we could move on. So perhaps they could look at this subject a bit more objectively and understand that lay people tend to not listen to any group making contradictory statements.

Just keep going, Anthony. These useful idiots of the warmist faith keep giving you flak, so (as James Delingpole says) you must be over the target. But this is contemptible garbage even for this guy’s standards.

Greg Laden Blog: “Culture as Science – Science as Culture.”
The nonsensical juxtaposition of words that at best belongs in ‘Pseuds Corner’ of Private Eye and at worst, is a tired oxymoron. The latter sums up Laden.

When I read the original diatom/meteorite article, I thought this has less than a one in a 1,000 chance of being true and immediately forgot about it. I noted the caveats and thought they might have been a tad more strongly expressed.

Anyhow, in being attacked over something as petty as this, just goes to show the CAGW faithful are becoming increasingly desperate.

Perhaps you might consider using the term “cavalier with the truth” next time – and there will be a next time – as it sounds so much more eloquent than plain “liar”.

Reminds me of a fancy Harvard PhD applied to work for us. Claimed he could revolutionize our logistics. I guess our COO wanted to see what kind of work ethics he possessed, because the first job he asked him to do was sweep the warehouse. Heh,
“But I’m a Harvard graduate!” he shouted.

“I’m sorry, I didn’t know that. Here, give me the broom and I’ll show you how.”

I hear he went on to nearly bankrupt one of our competitors with some Oracle fancy malfunction junction systems. Don’t know what after that.

A clue to Greg Laden’s vitriolic attitude may be here:
Greg Laden received his B.A. with honors from the…. Reagent’s…. College of the University of the State of New York, and an MA and PhD in Anthropology from Harvard University”http://www.mnsci.org/index.php?id=119

Sad to see the “bio” tab in which he mentions “Harvard” nearly 10 times, seems to have gone from Laden’s Blog making my previous snide post about Harvard students puzzling.
It is still visible here: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/about/

Well done Anthony, for highlighting these fraudsters. I’ve posted (see below) but whether that scumbag approves it or not is a different matter.

“Jack

January 17, 2013
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Laden,
You are a fraud. You have selectively reported parts of the original article to smear Anthony Watts and support your alarmist agenda. You have not had the decency to include a link to the original article so your followers can inspect the evidence for themselves (ooh – where have I heard that before – ah, yes, Michael Mann’s hockey stick).
Given you have so blatantly posted such a misrepresentation of Mr Watts’ article, why should anyone believe anything else you’ve said?”

What if the original paper is right? It’s more important to progress science than to have words over it. In the first instance, not being a specialist on the topic, I would place this high on the list of topics to follow. I don’t presume that the authors of the paper are stupid and I do presume that the confirmation of life forms from elsewhere would be one of the most interesting events that a scientist could envisage.
If the authors are shown to be wrong, in the normal course of events they will issue a correction.

Anthony, you could possibly dig up the (obviously recent ) episode of Quirks and Quarks from CBC Radio with host Bob MacDonald ( Suzuki’s CBC replacement) doing an interview/
It’ll blow the Laden pants off

A link to a paper claiming evidence of extra-terrestrial life, with a disclaimer stating that it is interesting but needs extraordinary proof and Mr Laden goes rabid.
Even though the screen capture showed part of the disclaimer..

When someone says that a person has said something particularly stupid on some other blog, I frequently check to see the item in the original. If the quote is taken out of context or is missing an important piece of information, then my faith in the original person drops considerably.

Every single person who goes from Laden’s blog to check your original posting will come away feeling cheated by Laden. Given the bold red caveat, there is nothing to see remotely credulous. It was exactly that sort of thing that first persuaded me to check out the sceptic line of thought more thoroughly.

It it why it is important that sceptics do not engage in such behaviour in reverse.

Lies are more common because people can now isolate themselves in insular groups connected form around the world that condone that behavior, either explicitly or through adopting an “alternate” set of facts about the world that they hold equally valid as what actually happened.

Thus, reinforced by the person’s “crowd,” the behavior has no effective social sanction.

See it every day. The wonderful social and electronic networks (among other things) we’ve created allow people to isolate themselves from the consequences of their ideas.

If you accept for a moment “the world” as one’s image of the world, regulars at Laden’s blog *literally* live in a different world than regulars here.

The conflict becomes insoluble.

Information technology has led people out of bondage, it looks like we find a way to lead ourselves back in.

• I use to comment on his site just for fun. He ran one of his ignorant comments saying, in essences, that cougars never hurt anyone and should not be feared and I presented him with evidence that they in fact have killed many people but that naturally went against the narrative of the min. that Greg was pushing because he knew that cougars were good because they are atheist.
•
• John Swallow
December 4, 2011
I quit with this dishonest site some time ago and it will be interesting to see just how distorted what I have foolishly wasted my time putting forth now might be presented, if it is at all.
It doesn’t seem like it takes much to get some one with a distorted mind such as Ivy to “smile”. People with that mentality are generally fairly happy but it seems like the comment could be construed as having some racist overtones to it.
It seems like the drones on here didn’t catch the part about my not being a hunter and no where do I advocate the killing of cougars; but, I also know that they can be dangerous animals and the public needs to be made aware of that fact and not have some fools saying that that there is no problem with them and not all residence of the north woods are “Jungle Jims” and so full of knowledge as Greg is regarding all things both great and small.
• Greg Laden
December 4, 2011
John, one of the reasons you are so annoying, besides your global warming denialism, is that you ignore what I’ve said on this blog about dangers of wild animals and about being realistic about dealing with them.
Cornering and killing whatever cougars you run into, still, is not OK, despite what you say.
For Lula to have been fired, we would have had to fire him. The writer always risks that subtle things will be lost by small minded people.
John, I’ve enjoyed posting some of your comments, which are usually bannned here. But I think for now we are done for a while. Feel free to keep sending me the offensive idiotic emails, though, they are very entertaining!

For posterity, in case it doesn’t survive over at Laden’s blog, here’s the comment I made over there:

“I don’t think I could have found a better example of a dishonest blog entry than this. It illustrate why no one should be trusted who claims either that they are “pro science” (and their opponents “anti science”, natch) or that the sky is falling and anyone who says otherwise is somehow deficient.

It’s also amusing to note Laden’s bloviating that Watts fails to “check for veracity of the claim” whilst also claiming that his comment will not be published on WUWT (which in fact has), revealing a nice neat paranoid persecution complex to boot.

As I stated previously; I use to comment at his site and he has taken the term “out of context” beyond anything I had ever witnessed when he totally changed what I had posted and left my name attached. I became extremely angry at such dishonesty and I wrote him an email describing his ancestry and present ape like condition in no uncertain terms, using language that the Army had taught me. He is one unethical piece of work and has a following of equally qualified people. That these kind of basically illiterate and totally ignorant folks try to catch Mr. Watts up on anything should be considered by him to be a compliment of the highest order.

I use to comment on his site just for fun. He ran one of his ignorant comments saying, in essences, that cougars never hurt anyone and should not be feared and I presented him with evidence that they in fact have killed many people but that naturally went against the narrative of the minute that Greg was pushing because he knew that cougars were good because they are atheist.

John Swallow
December 4, 2011
I quit with this dishonest site some time ago and it will be interesting to see just how distorted what I have foolishly wasted my time putting forth now might be presented, if it is at all.
It doesn’t seem like it takes much to get some one with a distorted mind such as Ivy to “smile”. People with that mentality are generally fairly happy but it seems like the comment could be construed as having some racist overtones to it.
It seems like the drones on here didn’t catch the part about my not being a hunter and no where do I advocate the killing of cougars; but, I also know that they can be dangerous animals and the public needs to be made aware of that fact and not have some fools saying that that there is no problem with them and not all residence of the north woods are “Jungle Jims” and so full of knowledge as Greg is regarding all things both great and small.
• Greg Laden
December 4, 2011
John, one of the reasons you are so annoying, besides your global warming denialism, is that you ignore what I’ve said on this blog about dangers of wild animals and about being realistic about dealing with them.
Cornering and killing whatever cougars you run into, still, is not OK, despite what you say.
For Lula to have been fired, we would have had to fire him. The writer always risks that subtle things will be lost by small minded people.
John, I’ve enjoyed posting some of your comments, which are usually bannned here. But I think for now we are done for a while. Feel free to keep sending me the offensive idiotic emails, though, they are very entertaining!

Invite him to a press conference and he can then show us what he really knows….as an aside we can ask him about the logarithmic nature of CO2’s ability to create heat….what negative feedback is…if he has ever heard of a Holocene etc…? We can also introduce him to messrs Lintzen, Spencer,McIntyre and many others…oh and a quick lesson in Earth Science from Bob Carter….now that would be funny. Especially when he realises that we are suffering Carbon Dioxide starvation!

The difference between myself and Mr. Laden is that WUWT isn’t afraid to have topics for discussion that might be proven wrong, and in the process, people learn something.

Laden should remember when NASA made a claim 16 years ago about past life being found in a meteorite which was announced to the world by the President Clinton. What does Laden have to say about NASA’s claim and President Clinton’s statement?

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
August 7, 1996
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT UPON DEPARTURE
Today, rock 84001 speaks to us across all those billions of years and millions of miles. It speaks of the possibility of life. If this discovery is confirmed, it will surely be one of the most stunning insights into our universe that science has ever uncovered. Its implications are as far-reaching and awe-inspiring as can be imagined. Even as it promises answers to some of our oldest questions, it poses still others even more fundamental.http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/clinton.html

I do not recall ever going to any blog hosted by Greg Laden or Joe Romm (or John Cook) except when they are linked to in posts at blogs that are open, uncensored and balanced. Some of the many open, uncensored and balanced sites are: BH, JC, CA, WUWT, JoNova . . .

Laden, Romm and Cook get increased hits when their misbehavior is pointed out by sites like WUWT, so it reinforces their misbehavior. That is positive feedback operating to increase their misbehavior. They would seem to be unstable due to that positive feedback.

Even in his commented blog reply where he tries to salvage things he basically says that, of course he realizes that Anthony had reservations… but the article should have been discounted immediately (ie. not published and discussed.)

You know, the people at the top are supposed to be the gatekeepers of truth, yadda yadda. Exactly the sort of mentality that the AGW crowd was employing at the publishing level to make sure that claims that they are sure were wrong don’t see the light of day.

Laden is a closed minded idiot. His proposal that everyone should be smart enough to immediately dismiss a claim based on ones vast wealth of knowledge is idiotic. I work with a scientist who acts like this and it’s funny how often he turns out to be wrong. He just makes himself look foolish.

Do people have nothing better to do?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you are just want to be an Al Gorezeera or other elitie’s slave then ignoring their henchmen certainly makes sense. If you are not interested in wearing a slave collar then yeah, you call out every single one of these henchmen when they put a foot wrong.

Of course if you are too stupid to realize the actual war is about slavery vs freedom then I guess you ignore everything until the day the slave collar snaps shut like the Russian Intelligensia did.

Yes, there is indeed an element of hate, as Mr. Watts writes, in the “comments policy” paragraph:

” Interestingly, those who post racist or denialist remarks on this blog tend also be profane, obnoxious, and often threatening. And if anybody around here is gonna do that, it’s ME, dammit!”

“Racist or denialist”, well, well, that’s as clear an example of guilt by association as I have ever seen. Hard to tell though if his outbursts are a result of real hatred or just a delayed youthful blustering attitude.

Sad loser desperately trying to get hits on his pointless blog.
These people know that WUWT is a source of hits and any reference from here is going to drive traffic….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which is why I avoid the temptation to go to the pointless blog and add to the traffic.

However, I did make a post on Tamino’s blog ‘Open Mind’ the other day (never has a blog title been so inapppropriate!).

He is running a thred about the Australian bush fires blaming CAGW. The posts on there are so ludicrous I decided to post even though I suspected it would be censored.

I just reminded him of the ‘Permanent Australian Drought’ scare of just a few years ago and posted the current position on Australian temperatures, rainfall, and drought as per the Australian government. None of which shows any issues at all.

Kind of interferes with yours and the ‘Teams’ attempts to retain control of the agenda and story.

Unfortunately for you and the rest of your ‘crew’, you can only censor your own pathetically small (and getting smaller. Very little traffic and comments on RC now. Just the faithfull remain!) area.

Well you lost control of that sometime ago and now reality has caught up with you. You are now starting to see some scientists raising their heads up and suggesting possible other things than CO2 for the short term warming.

The unspoken or implied threats from the climate clique are starting to lose their power and potency a la Lance Armstrong and his clique.

It’s only going to get worse. There is no warming on the horizon and the models will fall out of their error bands and be falsified. New ones could be constructed but what the heck can they show that will put the C in CAGW and yet still match the data?

Nope, you had better start edging towards the life rafts. I see Hansen has been forced out of his bunker and agreed there is a pause in GW.

Who will be the first amongst the clique to declare against CAGW and throw the rest under the bus? It is the right play after all.

Well continue to talk to your acolytes and true believers, you can ignore reality for a while in your little bunker especially if you don’t let anyone but people of faith in.

Remind you of anything around about 1945? That worked out well” didn’t it?

Just read that astronomers have discovered the biggest object of our universe, a collection of 73 quasars, four billion light years across. How come that as an outsider I think that this is not a bogus claim whereas I do with almost all claims of climate science? May have to do with quality, honesty, and not calling your opponent names.

Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
Sooner or later, it will be clear to everyone who bothers to consider it that the global warming alarmists are no different than previous alarmists and doom-sayers. Sooner or later it will be clear to all that folks like Laden are the same as the folks like Dr. Henry Morris. The dogmatism and self-promoting actions of the global warming alarmists are clearly the same as the actions of the young-earth crowd.

I thought this is a common practice in that field – I mean cherry-picking and make a hockey-stick out of a straight line! Clearly that is what Laden did with the web-site snip! Tells me already no to go an check his blog!

About the paper – there is now a reply to the comments posted too – same issue! They ignore the comments and just focus on their ideas.
All diatoms and biogenic debris they show are Holocene species and typical of modern freshwater lake sites in sub-tropical, tropical enviornments. I did some work on some lakes here in Qld and I have a colleague working in that field and I bet we could get some more sepcies names. If they had some diatom species that occurred back outside our Holocene time, I would probably say ok – but that that other place has gone through the same evolution as Earth??? Hmm, not sure!

Also, the image quality makes me even wonder if they really have used an FEG ESEM. I got the impression they used a regular SEM. E&O Dept of Cardiff University does not list a FE-SEM and just says: Analytical SEM and ESEM. It does not exclude that they have a FEG but it is not mentioned specifically either, but in my opionion they even faked on the instrument!

there are lots of other questions I would have about the theory – including some of the fine-grained debris would change morphology upon exposure to too much heat – but maybe the piece came in under frozen conditions.

I disagree with all those who say Laden should be ignored. His post was a transparent attempt to portray climate-skeptics as cranks. It is in the same vein as Lewandowsky’s ‘deniers believe the moon landings were faked’ mendacity. Laden was probably just following others lead. But it is nonetheless part of a larger campaign, and should be countered.

Greg Laden, if you read these comments (why do I feel relatively certain you will?), I’d just like to say that I think you’re an intellectually dishonest person. I would never trust anything you say. I know you don’t care about what I think of you, and it appears you have the same general disdain for people who disagree with you on this topic (and undoubtedly, many other topics as well). But you should care. Because mistakes based on hubris and ignorance and incomplete information are legion. They eventually become exposed. In the long run, reality and truth shine through exaggerations, lies and bulls**t.

Anthony, at least you’re in good company. Bill Clinton came out and said the dangest thing in 1998 – a meteor with fossilised cells had been found. What would Greg Laden have said about that if he wasn’t still in daipers? President Clinton is a moron?

Well, given his latest posting where his ego and hatred prevents him from making a correction, or showing the first paragraph in full, or linking to the original piece to allow readers to see for themselves, I suppose my only route then is the one Tallbloke took when Laden libeled him last year, and that’s legal action.

I like the general science stories like the “meteor” story although technically it would be a “meteorite” if it was found on earth. I also enjoy Laden’s rants, Hansen’s back-paddling and Al Gore’s new multi-million dollar digs. It keeps me warm and cynical.

You make the statement: “I don’t know how I could have made the caveat any clearer. Anyone not blinded by hate can see that in my very first paragraph, in red even.”.

I, unlike the large percentage of individuals, appear to be genetically blessed by a lack of propensity to “see red”. I will almost always not notice a difference between red and black text if the red is completely lacking in the other two colors that my screen displays. Conversely, if a background is fully red, I may not notice black text on that background. I did notice your caveat, but I definitely did not see it “in red even”. I have always found it amusing when someone talks of buying a “bright red car”. A red photographic safelight does provide enough illumination at the shorter wavelengths that I can conveniently read the printing on the end of the bulb in an otherwise dark room.

I find it amusing to be termed “blinded by hate” when so many are calling for a “colorblind society” to eliminate hate.

Re: rabid misspellings. To me, this is a nitpick. Yes, I do it too, but I do it to hopefully help Anthony write a little better. I do NOT do it in order to belittle. I love this blog, I read it daily as I have the time. But to pounce on a clear misspelling, yet constantly use “here’s” and “there’s” when “here are” and “there are” should be used, is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. I get called a pedant for it.

Everyone will make typos here and there. Using such a thing as a weapon against them is not an admirable thing, IMHO.

given that one of those has over 37,000 followers who would have all seen the Romm version, perhaps you need to take this a bit further.. ie reputational damages. (ie award winning science blog)

A formal complaint to Science blogs, and those behind Think Progress, especially Think Progress, as it would have taken them less than a minute to check and discover that the Greg Laden story was utter $%£$%$£

I helpfully commented that he should read the original article again for comprehension. I also suggested that he provide links to the original article if he’s going to criticize it so that his readers can follow through more easily and judge for themselves.

I went over to Laden’s blog and checked the story myself. Anthony’s write-up is spot on; Laden crops the banner and clips the quotes to make his point in a way that no reasonable person could attribute to accident, haste or negligence. It was deliberate distortion. Whether his motive was hate as Anthony claims or excessive partisan zeal for his cause (a marginally lesser offense) or something else entirely, I cannot say.

The comments on Laden’s blog overwhelmingly condemn the post on these grounds, so even if he censored some critical comments, plenty of effective ones got through. I also note quite some time has passed since the last response by Laden. He certainly has not mustered any effective defense of his reporting, so I call this a loss by forfeit.

All members of the church of CAGW are lefties. All lefties are socialists. All socialist who are not just delusional, are liars. Its all part of that “End Justify the Means” thing that is necessary in order to justify socialism.

Mindert Eiting says:
January 17, 2013 at 5:41 am
Just read that astronomers have discovered the biggest object of our universe, a collection of 73 quasars, four billion light years across. How come that as an outsider I think that this is not a bogus claim whereas I do with almost all claims of climate science? May have to do with quality, honesty, and not calling your opponent names.”

Maybe because they aren’t trying to sell you something at the same time? It is what it is: Data. No “good vs bad”. No “must act now or we are all doomed”. no threats of denialism. It’s what science is suppossed to be.

By the way, I was surprised to see, from this guy’s moronic commenters, that WUWT is the go to place for Biblical Creationism. Or maybe this guy’s commenters are as big of frauds as Greg Laden himself.

Ha ha! I think Laden is just rejoicing at all the traffic to his site! He has even written a follow up posting on the topic.
Credit to him, though; he is publishing negative comments (though that may be more about what keeps the traffic coming than ethics, I guess).

Anthony , you are far too generous, this time I will NOT go to the source, one visit to Ladens site was all I need, to never give it another view.
These people are reduced to talking to their hands. These sites are fading away, your visitor count keeps rising, the same can not be said of these hater sites.
I think its the new trend, get Watts mention, to generate traffic to pretend your site is relevant.
Is there any way to check the impact on traffic to Scientific America’s blog, from your posting last week?
This is not criticism, I admire a man who can be so kind to persons of Laden’s nature.
Ridicule may be the only way to get his attention.

Drawde says:
January 17, 2013 at 8:20 am
How can anyone tell with 100 percent certainty that a meteorite is from Mars?”

I believe they analyzed gas trapped in the meteorite and it matched the composition that was measured on Mars. Does this give 100% certainty? Probably no, but it’s a combination of the trapped gas, the type of rock, and the probability that it more likely came from a near neighbor than from further away.

climatebeagle says:
January 17, 2013 at 8:51 am
Anthony was correct to post the original article.

All scientists should be humble and not dismiss ideas out of hand, we have a prime recent example, Daniel Shechtman, who (for real) won the chemistry Nobel for discovering quasicrystals.”

YES! Excellent point!!! Daniel Shechtman’s story of finding quasicrystals against the support of the “learned establishment” is an excellent example of the dangerous of consensus science. At one point I believe Shechtman’s advisor dropped him over it and said hew was an embarassement to his lab. Now who’s the embarassment!!!

Be happy! This is just another indication of how wide a readership you have obtained.

Going on the defensive, confirms that Mr Laden’s unjustified article successfully “got to you”. A victory, in his mind, which could have been easily ignored. Let him send people to this site when he quotes your name. Some will stay as our victory.

No point in returning the favor. There is no chance of changing the opinions, of those dedicated to the religious worship of nature/climate. As you state – the written record is clear and easily understood. GK

Mindert Eiting says:
January 17, 2013 at 5:41 am
Just read that astronomers have discovered the biggest object of our universe, a collection of 73 quasars, four billion light years across. How come that as an outsider I think that this is not a bogus claim whereas I do with almost all claims of climate science? May have to do with quality, honesty, and not calling your opponent names.”

It is interesting how “real” science has more faith in OBSERVATION than in theories. This structure will make them rethink or throw out Einstien’s Cosmological Principle theory… and they freely admit it! Unlike CAGW which holds observations to be incorrect unless they reinforce the theory…

Anthony – When I first read your post it struck me that you already had this kind of misrepresentation in mind.

Your repeated declarations of skepticism: “…if it holds up…”, “…extraordinary claims etc…”, “…but I remain skeptical of the claim.”, “…but I have some doubts…” (regarding the journal) really didn’t leave me in any doubt as to your position, but did leave me thinking that you expected some loon to do exactly what some loon did.

At least we know that the people that actually believe Laden’s mischaracterization of you and your post will believe anything and, like Laden, aren’t destined to make any meaningful contribution to science anyway.

@Jimbo. There was a comment by “Dean” to your original post ( as you say, the thread conveniently does not host your subsequent posts )

I chose to reply to that claim but I have little hope of it making it past moderation but in the hopes that new visitors being brought here from Laden’s page can see how he manipulates what little conversation is to be had there i’ll post it here.

Craig Frier
January 17, 2013

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

have you never heard of the phrase “When you have hit rock bottom it’s time to stop digging”?

As for Dean.

I get tired of seeing this particular accusation re: cherry picking. When your intention is to deduce exactly for how long there has been a reduced trend or cessation of warming then you may not arbitrarily choose a point in history that suits your purpose. It does not work like that. It’s a claim for which there can be no cherry picking because of the nature of the very thing you seek.

You don’t start 16 years ago because it suits, you start at the nearest point to today for which you have data and then you work backwards up until the data shows that the trend in temperatures become positive again.

The end point for determining the point at which the trend in warming ceased to be positive by any statistically significant measure is 16 years ago. That’s not cherry picking, that’s merely what HadCrut 3 data shows. You can’t falsify it ( even though the figures are continually massaged to lower historical temps and raise recent temps ).

I don’t know if you are honest or intelligent enough to understand that simple bit of scientific method.

No surprise here Mr. Laden has no scruples and sees everything through the prism of a melon lens. In my life I’ve never met a honest leftist, their creed is whats yours is mine and I know whats best for you and if I have to lie, cheat and steal to get my way, I will!

AndyG55 says:
January 16, 2013 at 11:00 pmHow anyone, except the most moronically stupid of people could see the original thread as anything but a, ” this is interesting, I wonder if its true” is beyond me.

Totally agree.
Interesting that Greg Laden pretends to have a science blog. Science as culture, culture as science? Is this his culture of science? To present only the bits of facts that endorse his point of view and hide the rest?
If he is not able to understand and judge objectively a simple post and straight subject, how can one expect his posts to have any bit of objectivity on climate?
His answer is just digging him deeper in his hole.
It is this obfuscation and unfair presentation that skeptics have to face again and again from these GW-fanatics. Get a life Greg.

mnhawk says:
January 17, 2013 at 8:37 am
By the way, I was surprised to see, from this guy’s moronic commenters, that WUWT is the go to place for Biblical Creationism. Or maybe this guy’s commenters are as big of frauds as Greg Laden himself.

Tha is one of the Alinsky rules being applied where a false accusation is made to smear an opponent’s reputation with a total disregard for the truth. It makes no difference whether the opponent is a fundamentalist Christian with a belief in Creationism, a Papal astronomer supportive of evolutionary theory, or a confirmed atheist and professor of evolutionary biology, the false accusation will be made as desired by0 socialist accusers seeking to silence the voices of opponents.

I thought your coverage of the original claim was just right. One can be too dismissive. “Gentlemen, I would rather believe that two Yankee professors would lie than believe that stones fall from heaven” Thomas Jefferson, 1809.

Keep pressing on, Anthony! It’s OK to call these types out and use their own words (however misspelled) against them. This is a journey on many fronts: discovery; scientific truth and unfortunately, fabricated lies. The wise can tell which is which and will gravitate to the source of enlightenment. That’s why we come here to WUWT. That Greg (“call me ‘Bin!'”) Laden is a liar is… scientific truth. Keep on!

“This looks to be a huge story, the first evidence of extraterrestrial life”

I cringed when I saw that as the first line. Many people don’t read much past the twitter limit, and you opened sounding as though you were not nearly as skeptical as this story and authors deserved. It is great to trot these things out to the readership, with all the varied expertise, but you need to be very clear from the first line that is what you are doing.

This Laden chap moderates my comments out. For example I recently tried to post on his site my full agreement with the UKMO and IPCCs AR5 second draft on flat lined global temperatures. Nothing contentious there at all, this is the consensus. But no, such moderate mainstream observations of honest scientific work published by AGW friendly tax payer funded organisations are not welcome on his site.

On the other hand WUWT allows me to post anything critical of sceptics who in my jaundiced view are largely closet warmists.

On that previous post I made a comment pinning down what ‘Anti-Science’ is and showing it is irrelevant to WUWT.

Here is that comment of mine:

Andy Revkin reported that Bora Zivkovic, a blog editor at Scientific American, deleted a blog comment on a SA blog and then inserted this notice of the deletion:

“This comment removed by blog owner, due to inclusion of a link to ideologically-motivated anti-science site What’s Up With That.”

This is a comment directed to Bora Zivkovic who is a member of the Scientific American editorial staff.

Bora Zivkovic’s use of intellectual differentiation is faulty. By any view of the range of science’s different contexts, he has failed in identification of the fundamental scientific context of the WUWT blog.

‘Anti-Science’ is a movement that uses the fundamental idea that science (and its inherently associated and necessary technological / industrial development) is a damaging influence for a civilization. Therefore, WUWT is excluded prima facia from all ‘Anti-Science’ contexts.

But, also consider the fundamental idea of ‘Pseudo-Science’; it is an attempt to emulate the appearance of having the same respected status as a related science at any period in the ceaseless ongoing development of the scientific process. Pseudo-science is a scientific mimicking and detecting the mimics is within the normal healthy scientific process. It is to be expected, is normal and is common in the history of science for there to be scientific mimics (Psuedo-Scientists) . I think the open forum WUWT provides is an effective means for facilitating the healthy scientific process of culling out the climate science mimics; culling out Climate Science Psuedo-Scientists. It is understandable that those endorsing the mimics in climate science, like Bora Zivkovic does, do not like WUWT.

Also, consider the idea promoted by Cook’s blog. His fundamental idea is the products of IPCC process are incontestable authority in climate science. Has he focused on the normal and necessary culling out the climate science mimics (Climate Science Psuedo-Scientists) in the IPCC processes and its products? No, he excludes the IPCC from that normal and necessary scientific step of culling out the commonly occurring mimic science; culling of pseudo-science. Cook’s blog profoundly avoids the scientific process in that regard. His blog represents what I call Scientific Mimic Abetting.

John

The term ‘Anti-Science’ if looked at critically is impotent as a weapon against scientific critics and WUWT.

This guy really has problems with spelling. First he wrote “What’s up with that”, in his second attempt now it’s “Whats up with that”. Amazing since he manages writing Anthony Watts correct multiple times.

One claim to fame for me (which probably only makes me look sad…) is that I have been blocked off Mr Laden’s site, when I was only trying to answer a question he asked me. Odd really, as I am as skilful at debating as a hippo is at threading a needle.

He also seems to be an enthusiastic supporter of the dreadful talk that the “philosopher” Kathleen Dean Moore gave at the Nobel Conference 48, where she championed murder for her cause – and was applauded rapturously!

One claim to fame for me (which probably only makes me look sad…) is that I have been blocked off Mr Laden’s site, when I was only trying to answer a question he asked me. Odd really, as I am as skilful at debating as a hippo is at threading a needle.
…

One should not forget the number 1 rule in participating in ANY forum, including but not limited to broadcast ‘shows’, online forums, hosted events etc., and in particular, in the presence any ‘parading’, striding or grandstanding (attention-seeking) peacock:

mnhawk says January 17, 2013 at 8:37 am
By the way, I was surprised to see, from this guy’s moronic commenters, that WUWT is the go to place for Biblical Creationism. Or maybe this guy’s commenters are as big of frauds as Greg Laden himself.

D. Patterson says January 17, 2013 at 11:19 am
Tha[t] is one of the Alinsky rules being applied where a false accusation is made to smear an opponent’s reputation with a total disregard for the truth.

And here I just thought it was pure dysfunction (exhibition of classical dysfunctional behavior; for the mathematical types this means no distinct ‘mapping’ of X onto Y via a definable function (a ‘domain to range’ problem) and a random variable/ coefficient/ multiplier added for good measure) on display on the part of any given ‘progressive’ …. every time I see a WH speech or dispatch (via Carney or O) the same thought strikes me …

Isn’t it odd that things seem to have reversed. The anti anything people of the 60’s and early 70’s that wanted freedom from government were on the fringe. Now the thinkers and truth seekers like Anthony, and most here, are on the fringe. The loons on the left oppose so many freedoms that once were assumed. They try to smear any that oppose their agenda. As it’s often said, “What’s up with that”? Keep up the great work Anthony on Watts Up With That.

Betapug says:
January 16, 2013 at 11:50 pm
Greg (“did I mention I went to Harvard?”) Laden at least nails his flag to his masthead:
“Culture as Science-Science as Culture”. The culture is quite green and must have been forgotten, incubating at the back of a dark fridge (was it a Harvard fridge?) for some time.

Lol. As someone who could have gone to Harvard but did not, I find that Mr. Laden’s pomposity confirms me in my choice to stay away. No one who writes about himself the way he does can possibly be taken seriously. And he does not credit to his alma mater with the sort of ranting found on his “about” page.

My view is dont sue. Remember your blog is way over 100 million views and counting. He is not in the same league. You would be doing him a favour by challenging him. Also, the issue deals with extra-terrestrial life and what may well be contamination. This is actally not your focus, Your main focus is climate science and the issues over integrity and science there. People who are encouraging you to sue just want a show. You are way above Greg Laden. Leave him below.

Hellyah, sue him. False light…I don’t think so; never heard of such a thing, but to sue because your feelings are hurt. Romm’s headline would be, “Watts sues…feelings hurt.”

Actually, I am sure the headline would be far sexier since he is a trained professional.

Sue him because he lied about you and spread the lie. I mean, don’t do it if it any way interferes with your real life in which I am sure you must make time for your kids basketball practice and so forth. Hell, dealing with that Jack-wagon isn’t worth time it takes to make risotto. But these knuckleheads will always take the time to sue, and that’s one way they have built their narrative.

If Anthony hadn’t drawn attention to him on various occasions, Mr Laden’s execrable offerings would be pondered over only by a small gang of the Faithful.
One is clearly torn between humiliating him (showing that picture of him alone is sufficient!) and denying him the oxygen of publicity.
Warmists get things wrong…surely everyone understands that by now!

I’ve got to love this quote. Laden says ” I’ve got children. I want them to grow up in a better world, not the world that Anthony Watts wants them to grow up in.”

So Greg Laden believes a “better world” is one in which he is in control of the “truth”. A world in which Mr. Laden, or like minded people, controls what is seen, read and believed. I’m sure that world seems very safe to Mr. Laden. A nice place to raise his children and keep them safe from the ugly world outside.

Many see what these pushes for “truth” really are. They are no more than very thinly veiled attempts at control. Goebbels said, “He who controls the medium controls the message. He who controls the message controls the masses.” This is exactly what Mr. Laden and people like him are attempting to do. Unfortunately Mr. Laden and his ilk are so blinded by the believed righteousness of their message. So blinded by their hatred of those that don’t believe, they can’t see just how evil their own acts are.

Lets hope the rest of the world wakes up and sees these people for what they truly are.

Greg Laden would love to have what George Orwell put forth in his book “1984”
”Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary.”

”And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed-if all records told the same tale-then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’”
– George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 3

”Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?… Has it ever occurred to your, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?… The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking-not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”
– George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 3

Listen to your lawyer and check HIS finances before committing to a suit. It will eat you up and you may win but end up with nothing to show for your efforts & time. By all means, go get him if there’s a payoff…otherwise, content yourself with the skewering you’ve already given him!

No! The Algorestas are very very good. Please remember that!!
You are speaking about professional liars. These liars have the
upper hand. The only thing left to do is to ridicule them in public,
incessantly, else Alles ist kaput!!!!.

Well Mr Laden, you have conclusively proven how much of a hypocritical liar you are. I tried to submit a comment where I included the full text of Watt’s very clear and obvious caveats about the claims yet you have deliberately chosen to suppress those caveats and my comment. QED, you are a liar and a buffon. BTW, I vote on Watt’s poll to say “Take the high ground and move on” but now that I’ve seen your full blown narcissistic attitude I now earnestly do hope that he sues the pants of you because you fully deserve it.
I guess this is unlikely to be “approved” and once again you will demonstrate your hypocrisy and mendacity since you claim, wrongly, that Watt’s suppresses your comments on his site.

I voted for the ‘Force an apology’ option and my head still thinks that that’s the best action. After reading Laden’s response on his blog that he would go for this choice also (and have a lot of fun in the process) my heart tells me to sue him to kingdom come!
I would still advise caution however. He seems surprisingly unrepentent. Maybe he can afford any expected monetary loss should the suit be taken up and won by yourself. Perhaps the loss of your time in taking this forward may be seen as a positive investment by some although it’s far more likely that he has just totally lost the plot!

Those who are saying Anthony should “take the high ground” and walk away are missing the fact that if he does so, THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES for Laden. Why let him and his ilk continue to do and say what they do without fear of reprisal? It doesn’t matter if their audience is 1,000 or 1,000,000 – what matters is they continue to lie, defraud, defame, and spread hate and ignorance, and you say DON’T BOTHER TO STOP THEM?

How is that the “high ground”?

Anthony- the REAL “high ground” here is taking a stand for what’s right. Sue him into oblivion. It’s about time one of these folk finally had some real consequence for their words & actions.

His young son’s name is Huxley (as highlighted in his cringeworthy critique of aquatic ape theory). After Aldous, maybe – certainly not Thomas: “… scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”

I am for forcing an apology, rather than feeding the vultures of the legal profession with little chance of any recompense but a chance of high cost, financial and emotional, to yourself.